Animal Circus in India

Ban and benevolence:
Circus, animals and Indian state
P.R. Nisha
University of the Witwatersrand
Social sciences and humanities have recently begun posing enquiries such as do animals have
histories, memories and subjectivities. Circus animals hardly figure in the discourses on animals
while a wide variety of animals existed in the rings globally as performers and workers. The
ban of the training and performance of certain wild animals by the Ministry of Environment and
Forests, India in 1991 was a watershed moment for the almost 150-year-old circus industry in
the subcontinent. This article explores the legal battle that followed the ban, various discourses
around animals, both wild and captive, the human and non-human association in circuses and
the history of animal training and performance and critically examines the ideas of rescue,
rehabilitation and conservation. The acquisition, taming and trade of animals are implicated
in the history of hunting, wildlife policies of the colonial and postcolonial states in India. The
‘rescue’ and ‘rehabilitation’ of animals from the ‘private’ circus companies to the ‘public’ zoos
would unravel how the very idea of scientific conservation becomes a violent guile of state and
civil society actively propagating the binary of cruelty and mercy. The article will also briefly
discuss the questions of intimacy and emotions between the animal and the animal trainer
beyond the common representations.
Keywords: circus, animals, animal cruelty, animal captivity, conservation, zoo
Animals have always been an indispensable part of the circus around the world until
the recent legal proscriptions in many countries and emergence of new concepts
such as ‘Noveau Cirque’. Despite the fact that the Indian circus is almost a century
Acknowledgements: Earlier versions of this article have been presented in seminars and lectures in
Jawaharlal Nehru University, Indian Institute of Science and Centre for Studies in Social Sciences,
India and Lund University and Linnaeus University, Sweden. I am thankful to all those who listened,
read and commented especially S. Sanjeev, Gunnel Cederlof, Tuktuk Kumar, Biswamoy Pati, Anna
Lindberg, Dilip M. Menon, Tapati Guha Thakurta, Janaki Nair, Partha Chatterjee, Pernille Gooch,
Ed Emery, Piers Locke, Jonathan Saha, Marthe Kiley-Worthington, Jake Rendle-Worthington, late
Anjan Ghosh, late M.S.S. Pandian, J. Devika, Rohan Deb Roy, Savyasaachi, Peter Forsgren, Radhika
Krishnan, Ase Magnusson, Noushad M.P., Andreas Johansson, Jacco Visser, Sreebitha P.V. and
Shibani Bose. My gratitude to Mahesh Rangarajan, Divyabhanusinh and the anonymous reviewer
of IESHR for their valuable criticisms and suggestions is beyond words.
The Indian Economic and Social History Review, 54, 2 (2017): 239–266
SAGE Los Angeles/London/New Delhi/Singapore/Washington DC/Melbourne
DOI: 10.1177/0019464617695676
240 / P.R. Nisha
and a half old, its pasts have hardly been explored. Animals in the circus bring to the
fore a long tradition of animal trade, taming, training and human accompaniment,
raising significant questions regarding their acquisition, captive life, breeding and
changing relation to forests and wilderness over the time. They are inextricably
linked with a colonial genealogy of the ‘exotic’ and ‘exhibit’. Social scientists
have begun posing the question ‘can animals have histories?’ in recent times, rec-
ognising the position of animals as analogous with marginal human groups who
are under-represented. That circus animals who are a ‘minority’ in every sense
hardly figure even in histories on wildlife, environment and livelihood in India is
not at all surprising. On writing animals into social history, Sandra Swart argues
that ‘drawing on the gendered or women’s history paradigm, perhaps historians’
first step could be simply to demonstrate that animals have a history at all’ and we
should explore ‘how social history can be enriched by focusing on history from an
animal perspective—and equally, how the tools provided by social history reveals
the historicity of animals’.1 This article focuses on the historical tale of one of the
most marginalised non-human groups, the circus animals. The circus remains an
uncharted terrain in the Indian academia even though popular culture, body, perfor-
mance and marginal communities are being widely studied. The first section deals
with the historical 1991 ban of training and performance of certain wild animals
and the consequent legal battle between the state and the circus community. Then
I will move on to discuss what policies and attitudes brought animals to the circus
historically. In the next section, I will be looking at the colonial and postcolonial
state policies of scientific conservation, its emblematic institution, zoo, animal
trade and the ideas of exotic and exhibition.
The Ban
Animal lovers and rights activists around the world have often pointed their fingers
at the circus regarding the cruel methods used to train and tame animals, which
include blinding, removal of teeth and claws, deprivation of food and medication,
forced breeding, whipping and electric shock, and their lives in undersized cages
and transportation from place to place in appalling conditions. Over the past few
decades many countries have issued total or partial bans on animal performances
in circuses, nationwide and provincially. In 2009, Bolivia banned the use of all
animals—both wild and domestic—in circus, the first nation to do so.2
On 2 March 1991, the Ministry of Environment and Forests, India issued
an order, banning the training and performance of five categories of animals: ‘In
exercise of the powers conferred upon him under Section 22 of the Prevention
of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960, the President is pleased to order that no person
shall train or exhibit the animals specified below: 1. Bears 2. Monkeys 3. Tigers
1
Swart, ‘The World the Horses Made’, pp. 242, 249.
2
AP Report, ‘Bolivia Bans All Circus Animals’.
Ban and benevolence / 241
4. Panthers 5. Dogs.’3 (In the corrigendum dated 7 August 1991, the ban on dogs
was withdrawn.) Less than 3 weeks after the Ministry of Environment and Forests’s
ban order, on 20 March 1991, the Delhi High Court granted a stay on this order on
a petition filed by the Indian Circus Federation. As a result, the animals continued
in the circus ring. Six years later, after hearing the case at length, on 21 August
1997, the court ordered the government to consider their ban order afresh. Thus, an
expert committee4 was constituted for review and in accordance with their report,
recommendations of the Animal Welfare Board of India (AWBI) and other relevant
material pertaining to the case, on 14 October 1998, a new notification was issued:
‘the Central Government hereby specifies that the following animals shall not be
exhibited or trained as a [sic] performing animals, with effect from the date of
publication of this notification, namely: 1. Bears 2. Monkeys 3. Tigers 4. Panthers
5. Lions’.5 Both the Indian Circus Federation and Indian Circus Employees Union
moved the court challenging the order. On 16 December 1998, the Delhi High Court
dismissed the petition of Indian Circus Federation. Consequently, Indian Circus
Employees Union withdrew its petition in February 1999.
Many cases were filed by circus companies in courts around the country against
the seizure of the animals and seeking compensation from the government. The
most significant ruling came from the High Court of Kerala in a petition filed by the
employees of Jumbo Circus. Dismissing the petitioners’ plea, the Division Bench
comprising Justice K. Narayana Kurup and Justice K.V. Sankaranarayanan asked
in their telling judgment: ‘If humans are entitled to fundamental rights, why not
animals?’6 We will come back to this significant ruling in the concluding section.
The petitioners appealed to the Supreme Court of India but to no avail. The apex
court dismissed their appeal on 1 May 2001.
The ban, fateful in the lives of thousands of circus artistes and workers around
the country, has become a significant moment in the collective memory of the com-
munity. Even those who had retired from the trade long before the ban often begin
telling their life stories with some statement about its aftermath. V.M. Prabhakaran,
Secretary of the Indian Circus Employees Union at the time, said that about 400
animals had been taken away from Indian circuses altogether:
3
Indian Circus Employees Union Office, Thalassery, Kerala, Case File (hereafter, ‘ICE Case File’),
Government of India, New Delhi. I am grateful to late K.V. Raghavan, former President of the Indian
Circus Employees Union for providing me with a copy of the complete case file.
4
The High Court of Delhi after hearing the petitioners, issued an order on 21 August 1997 that a
committee of experts should be appointed for review and a report should be submitted to the central
government. The committee members were Addl. IGF (WL) as the chairman, Director of Animal Welfare
as member Secretary and Director of Wild Life Institute of India (Dehradun), Member Secretary of
Central Zoo Authority and S. C. Dey, Add. IGF (Rtd). ICE Case File, Kerala High Court (hereafter
‘Judgment 2000’).
5
ICE Case File, Government of India, Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment.
6
ICE Case File, Judgment 2000.
242 / P.R. Nisha
Figure 1
Gemini Circus, 1970s
Source: Author’s collection.
An animal has at least three keepers including the animal trainer. Thus at least
1200 trainers have become jobless with that order. The animal keepers and
trainers who have been looking after the animals haven’t got any compensation
either from the circus owners or from the government.7
The central argument of the petition was that ‘the Notification dated 14th October,
1998 issued by the Government arbitrarily threatens the livelihood of around
40,000 animal trainers/caretakers/handlers/performers’8 and that ‘the petitioners
herein are carrying on their trade/occupation/art/profession for nearly 109 years’.9
7
Interview, late V. M. Prabhakaran, retired circus artiste and union leader, Payyoli, 3 February 2009.
8
ICE Case File, Special Leave Petition (Civil) of 2000 (hereafter, ‘Special Leave Petition’); it
should be noted here that unlike Prabhakaran who counts only the animal trainers, the petition includes
performers, handlers, caretakers and keepers whose livelihood was associated with these animals.
9
ICE Case File, Argument Notes O.P. No. 2636 of 1999 (hereafter ‘Sasidharan, 2636’).
Another petition states, ‘there are more than 3,500 animals, who are involved and
are participating in the exhibition of circus shown in various parts of the country’.10
Circus owners and workers also argued that the circus animals which were
born and brought up in the circus were now accustomed to only the circus way of
life. They could not survive in the wild or with any other animal or, in any other
surroundings, whether in the zoo, a sanctuary or jungle. They cited the deaths of
the two circus animals from the Golden Circus just within 2 months of their ‘reha-
bilitation’ in Borivili National Park, Mumbai, and the deaths at the Alipore Zoo
where the animals from mobile-petting zoos had been placed. They pointed out that
far from living in improved circumstances after ‘rehabilitation’, the animals were
kept in the same cages in which they were brought for more than 6 months. They
also brought before the court; the plight of horses used in races, elephants used
in temple festivals, bullocks used for pulling carriages, donkeys used for carrying
weights in hostile climates and the animals being transported to the slaughter houses
cramped in vehicles for many hours.11 In short, they argued that there is a case of
discrimination as there are many other spaces where humans cause animal suffering.
Pointing out the substantial increase in the number of animals in circus in spite
of the restrictions on the acquisition of animals since 1972, the petitioners assert
that the breeding rate in circus is far higher than that in the zoos and sanctuaries,
highlighting this as an instance of the well-being of animals in the tents.12 They
further state that not only is the breeding more productive in circuses but death
rates are much lower compared to the zoos.13 They complain that the ‘existing
animals with the various zoos are not provided for [with] proper food, shelter and
surroundings’.14
Interestingly, the judgement of the High Court of Kerala quotes the report
of the committee constituted to review the ban on the exhibition and training of
performing animals, and criticises the attempt to draw a parallel between the zoo
and circus, ‘Contrasting differences in the case of zoos and circuses are that the
latter have capture, transportation, training, rehearsal and performance whereas the
10
ICE Case File, Amended Writ Petition, O.P. No. 155 of 1999, Annexure P 10.
11
ICE Case File, Original Petition No. 155 of 1999.
12
The Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 instructs that, ‘No licensee under this Chapter [v] shall…(b)
(i) capture any wild animal.’ Krishnan, ‘The Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972’, p. 565, critically notes,
‘The act does not seek to prohibit the hunting of all animals, but only their unlicensed poaching’ and
‘the definitions of “animals” and “wild life” are needlessly inept.’
13
S. Abu, former curator of Trivandrum Zoo and superintendent of Natural History Museum, noted,
The breeding in the circus is so effective that we are looking at it with open eyes. It must be
mainly because of the relationship between the animal trainer and the animals. We are always
facing difficulty to breed animals in captivity while in circus, there might also be other reasons,
but they breed and produce lots of cubs. (Interview, S. Abu, Trivandrum Zoo, 19 May 2010)
14
Sasidharan, 2636, ICE Case File.
244 / P.R. Nisha
former have capture/seizure and translocation.’15 It further argues that the circus
groups have ‘failed to appreciate the total changes in the zoo ethics of late’ and
shows their concern regarding ‘an adverse impact on the animals on display mostly
in unnatural environment’ in circuses.16 Along similar lines, the Review Commit-
tee Report argues that ‘the circuses may never be able to achieve the standards of
housing and upkeep of animals that the modern zoo provides’.17
The Review Committee that looked into the ban further reports, ‘breeding in
circuses is only accidental, or incidental, and in no way helps a national conserva-
tion program. It needs to be pointed out that inbred stocks lose their heterogeneity
and vigor’.18 On the other hand, circus employees of various circuses argue, ‘Circus
Units are from 1971 prohibited to purchase sale or transfer their wild animals with-
out the written permission of Wild Life Authorities. However, the circus animals
retained enjoy good health and longevity and an increase in numbers’ and allege,
‘the Government does not have the means, the capacity or ability to look after
the healthy animals which are being fully cared for and owned by the circuses’.19
The Review Committee Report further states,
while banning the use of tigers, panthers, bears and monkeys in circuses, [we]
always had in mind that the circuses have been the source of many livelihoods
and that it would cause hardships if the use of all the animals is banned abruptly.
Therefore, the animals like elephants and lions which are held by circuses in large
numbers, were not covered in the list of banned animals in the first instance.20
It is worthwhile noting here that the government was confused about its compas-
sion and conservation policy. It has not been made clear how dogs got into that list
or why they were excluded later. This predicament is conspicuous in the circular
issued for the rehabilitation of circus animals that explains the purpose of the ban
thus: ‘it was time society realized and [sic] importance of animals and their crucial
role in ecology’.21
In August 2013, the AWBI issued a ban on elephant performances in circus:
The Board decided to stop registration of elephants for performance under

Performing Animals Rules in view of huge cruelties and abuse suffered by them.
The Board also decided that a proposal for inclusion of Elephants in the list
of banned animals under The Performing Animals (Registration) Rules 2001
15
ICE Case File, Judgment 2000; ICE Case File, Report of the Committee Constituted by the Ministry
of Environment and Forests (hereafter ‘Review Committee Report’).
16
17
ICE Case File, Review Committee Report.
18
Ibid.
19
ICE Case File, Special Leave Petition.
20
ICE Case File, Review Committee Report.
21
ICE Case File, Government of India, Ministry of Social Justice & Empowerment.
be sent to the Ministry for consideration and there should be no performing

animals in circuses.22
The Board also ‘directed to issue legal notices to all circuses for [sic] using sick,
injured and unregistered animals in their circuses as Performing Animals’ and ‘seize
them after making arrangement for rehabilitation with some of the AWOs [Animal
Welfare Organisations] and Zoos’.23 The AWBI has stopped the registration of circus
elephants under the Performing Animals Rules cited above. However, as of now,
elephants are still there in circuses. Many of them are kept in the circus owner’s
private estates since they anticipate a complete ban soon.
It is worthwhile noting in this context that elephants figure dominantly in the
animal policy of the nation. Project Elephant was launched in 1992 and the Elephant
Task Force was constituted in 2010 by the Ministry of Environment and Forests.
As Mahesh Rangarajan, who headed the task force notes elsewhere, ‘The fact that a
species is unique as well as rare has eventually played a role in nationalist projects to
protect, review and propagate it.’24 Eric Scigliano notes that the species included in
Association of Zoos and Aquariums (AZA) ‘Species Survival Plan Mission’ are often
flagship species, well-known animals which arouse strong feelings in the public.25
Generating measures for the conservation of elephants, the report of Elephant
Task Force notes, ‘Conservation policies that may diminish the status of the captive
elephant should effectively integrate them into India’s wildlife protection laws. This
is especially important given that the vast majority of captive elephants today were
born in the wild and subsequently taken into captivity.’26 The report recommends
replacing ‘ownership’ with ‘guardianship’ and suggests that ‘service conditions of
mahouts’ should also be addressed, and training and certificates should be granted
to them. It also recommends that the usage of elephants in circuses and for col-
lection of alms should be discouraged/banned and should follow the precedent of
phasing out as per the 1991 ban.27
From Circus to Zoo: The Aftermath
Soon after the court rulings upheld the government order, zoo authorities around
the country were instructed to raid circuses and take away the animals. Various
animal rights NGOs gave a helping hand in the raids and strengthened campaigns
against circuses, posting reports and requests widely on the Internet.
22
Minutes, 39th general meeting of Animal Welfare Board of India, Chennai, 23 August 2013 http://
www.awbi.org/awbi-pdf/39_GM.pdf (accessed 22 January 2016).
23
Ibid.
24
Rangarajan, ‘Region’s Honour, Nation’s Pride’, p. 258.
25
Scigliano, Love, War and Circuses, p. 293.
26
Rangarajan et al., Gajah, pp. 108, 117.
27
Ibid.
246 / P.R. Nisha
A 2001 Telegraph report about the starving pair of royal Bengal tigers, a monkey,
a bear and 20 lions—including four cubs and an old lion—abandoned at Patna by
the Ajanta Circus after a surprise raid by the central wildlife officers and an order
of the cancellation of ownership gives a picture of the aftermath.28 Another news
report from Times of India (2001) notes that the seizure of these animals by the zoo
authorities could not take place in the first phase. The circus owners claimed that
the action by the authorities was not legal as the case regarding compensation for
the upkeep of animals was pending before the High Court of Patna. On the other
hand, the authorities claimed their actions were within legality. The circus moved to
Bokaro, the authorities left ‘empty handed’ and the poor animals were left starving.29
The circular issued to all Chief Wildlife Wardens for the rehabilitation of circus
animals specified five shelters spread over various states, ‘(a) Sri Venkateswara
Zoological Park, Tirupati, (b) Indira Gandhi Zoological Park, Visakhapatnam, (c)
Bannerghatta National Park, Bangalore, (d) Nahargarli Biological Park, Jaipur
and (e) Arignar Anna Zoological Park, Vandalur, Chennai’. It further adds that
the building work of the sixth shelter located at Nandankanan Zoological Park,
Bhubaneswar will be completed shortly.30 (See Table 1 from the official website of
the Central Zoo Authority [CZA] for the number of animals ‘rescued’, the circuses
they were taken from and the zoos to which they were transferred.)
The circus animals at the Tirupati Sri Venkateswara Zoological Park are kept
in two rescue centres. These enclosures are not part of the zoo itinerary and hence
not accessible to the public.31 Funded by the CZA, Animal Rescue Centre - I was
constructed during 1999–2000 and the second centre in 2004–05. The CZA also
bears the upkeep of the animals and the funding is reduced in accordance with the
decrease in the number of animals. The curator also added that these enclosures
(that seemed like an old age home with aged lions) will become part of the regular
zoo space after all the circus animals cease to exist. Deliberate measures, such as
castrating and separating males and females, are undertaken to prevent breeding.
She further added that most of the animals are hybrid, so the breeding had to be
regulated. But, however, accidental breeding has happened and those cubs have
been moved to the safari park for display.32
The current details regarding the circus animals that came to the Tirupati Zoo-
logical Park, provided by the Zoo Curator’s Office, show that 45 animals have
already perished and also all the tigers and tigresses are dead,
The first batch of 12 Nos. of rescued Lions (5 male + 7 female) was received
from Rambo Circus on 26-09-2001. In the next batch, 12 Lions (4 males + 8
28
Tapas Chakraborty, ‘Circus Ends, Nightmare Begins for Animals’.
29
Prakash, ‘Circus Animals: Ordeals Ends for a Better Deal’; it is noteworthy that according to the
latter, the animals were left with some circus animal keepers.
30
ICE Case File, Government of India, Ministry of Social Justice & Empowerment.
31
I am grateful to the zoo curator Yesoda Bai IFS for granting access.
32
Interview, Yesoda Bai, Tirupati Zoological Park, 28 August 2014.
Table 1
List of Seized Circus Animals
Circuses/Other Sources Capacity Current Position
from Where the Animals
Were Received Lions Tigers Lions Tigers Name of the Circus Surrendered
Arignar Zoological Park 40 20 53 8 Johnson Indian Variety Entertainment,
Vandalur Royal Mobile Circus, Kallakurichi, Private
Circus, Kanyakumari, Great Rayman Circus,
King Bharat Circus, Satur, Great Royal
Circus, Chennai, Great Bombay Circus,
Polur Taluk, Gemini Circus, Kancheepuram
Bannerghatta National 70 30 97 3 Mobile circus, K.G.F, Kolar, Mobile circus,
Park, Bangalore Kundapur, Mangalore, Geeta Circus,
Gulbarga, Komal Circus, Faridabad,
Haryana, Golden Circus, U.P., Sangli Zoo,
Maharashtra, Asiad Circus, Bijnor,
Uttaranchal, Bharat Circus, Madhya Pradesh
(Nimuch), Nandankanan Zoo, Orissa,
Shalimar and New Golden Circus, Grand
Prabhath Circus, New Grand Circus
Sri Venkateswara 15 15 25 1 Rambo Circus, Grand National Circus
Zoological Park, Tirupati
Indira Gandhi Zoo, 30 30 26 12 Ajanta Circus, Patna, Saibaba Circus,
Visakhapatnam Famous Circus, Suresh Circus
Nahargarh Biological 30 20 23 12 Great Geeta Circus, Jamuna Circus, Empire
Park, Jaipur Circus, Indian Circus, Mobile Zoo
Source: Central Zoo Authority website (http://www.cza.nic.in/rescue.html).
248 / P.R. Nisha
females) and 2 Tigresses were received from the National Circus on 31.03.2002.
In addition to the above 26 animals, 18 animals i.e., 9 Males and 9 Females
were received from the Western Circus, Appollo Circus and Royal Circus during
the year 2004–05. On 15.8.2005, 2 Lions and 3 Lionesses (total 5 Animals)
were received from Sangli-Miraj-Kupwad, Mahanagarapalika Zoo, Sangli,
Maharashtra. On 31.8.2005, 3 Lions, 16 Lionesses and 1 Tiger (Total 20
Animals) were received from Jumbo Circus, Jaipur (Mishra farm house) and
7 Lions (5 males and 2 females) from Amar Circus, Jaipur (Mishra farm house)
on 30.9.2006. At present there are 36 animals being maintained in the Animal
Rescue Centre at Tirupati.33
Circus owners complain that large numbers of animals taken from them were
missing when they reached the zoos. Sujit Dilip who runs Rambo Circus says,
‘I’m afraid of dogs, but I’ve never been afraid of lions. They were let loose in my
house and they were not wild, they were bred in our own circus, and I was brought
up along with them, in their company.’ He added that Rama master, a tiger trainer,
committed suicide after his animals were taken away. Another ring master named
Rajan left the job.34 Babu, a ring master from Gemini, told me that many of his
senior ring masters quit the job and some did not even have a home to go.35 Sujit
says that he had requested those officials who came to take the animals away to
keep a single trainer with them. This was not allowed and now he knows that all
his animals taken to Tirupati zoo are dead and gone. He lamented that even the very
old lions were made to travel long distances which led to their deaths.36 Animal
trainers and helpers in other circuses have similar tales to tell. Another significant
allegation about the state policy was that the zoos in Junagadh, Mysore and Tirupati
were revamped with the animals taken from various circuses.37
There are many news reports that throw light on these animals’ afterlife at the
zoos. A report in The Telegraph (7 June 2008) about the circus animals in the rescue
centre at Tirupati Sri Venkateswara Zoo states that 70 lions were kept in packed
same-sex cages and zoo warden admitted that the animals are kept tranquilised
most of the time so that they would not get violent. We must bear in mind that
the law clearly states, ‘sedatives or tranquilizers or steroids or any other artificial
enhancers are not administered to or inserted in any animal except the anesthesia
by a veterinary doctor for the purpose of treatment of an injured or sick animal’.38
The Telegraph (7 June 2008) report describes the circus animals in the rescue
centre and the zoo animals at Tirupati Sri Venkateswara Zoo as ‘a caste system’:
33
Data as provided by Zoo Curator’s Office, Tirupati Zoological Park.
34
Interview, Sujit Dilip, Pune, 13 December 2011.
35
Interview, S. Babu, Gemini Circus, 19 June 2012.
36
Interview, Sujit Dilip, Pune, 13 December 2011.
37
Interview, E. Ravindran, circus instructor and union leader, Kathirur, 19 September 2011.
38
Performing Animals (Registration) Rules.
‘Some are pampered, allowed as much sex as they want, and are hailed as the
finest of the Asian breed. The other set survives in jam-packed same-sex cages,
fed but not cared for, denied copulation rights, objects of pity that is mixed with
contempt.’ The report further adds that the circus animals which are mostly hybrid
are not considered ‘wild life’ and wild life laws do not allow sex between hybrid
and ‘pure’ breeds. The story criticises the attitude of the zoo authorities who feel
that ‘these animals must be allowed to live as long as they can. That’s all.’ ‘Lions
and lionesses were kept separately to prevent breeding. The lions were neither pure
Asiatic nor African’, says a report on transfer of circus animals to the Bannerghatta
Park.39 It must be noted here that most of the animals in circuses are procured
through exchange deals with the zoos, private parties and markets. So, ‘an unknown
percentage of animals classified as captive-bred in circuses were actually bred in
other private facilities’.40
Animal Defenders International records that the government rescue centres
were over their capacity with the ‘exceeding number of animals’ collected from
circuses. This throws light on the fact that the state did not have accurate data about
the number of animals they were going to deal with. It notes, ‘In addition, some
states don’t support the ban, whilst others do not have the finances to enforce it.’41
Their website is also critical about circuses, mentioning that a lion died before it
could be rescued from the Olympic Circus and adds, ‘After a lengthy campaign
it was agreed that the animals would be moved to rescue centers that would be
expanded to house them, but the Government lacked any funds for transport and
holding cages.’ The Hindu also reports how the Vandalur Zoo authorities were
reluctant to take circus animals at first since they were apprehensive about the
letter of credit from the state government.42 So one may ask whether a change in
ownership from the ‘private’ circus to the ‘public’ zoo makes any difference in the
real suffering of animals.
It is noteworthy that the Wild Life (Protection) Act of 1972 defines zoo as, ‘an
establishment, whether stationary or mobile, where captive animals are kept for
exhibition to the public [and includes a circus and rescue centre…]’.43 Though
substituted later on, it shows that there was only a thin line of demarcation between
the zoo and circus as a space for exhibiting animals. Early circuses around the world
were, in fact, itinerant menageries with ticketed exhibitions of the caged animals from
the wilderness and ‘exotic’ lands. The performances in zoos have a different history
which we will discuss soon. But we may observe here how a sudden shift from
the familiar surroundings to cramped zoos or zoological parks with large areas
39
‘Animals Rescued, Circuses Banned’.
40
Iossa et al., ‘Are Wild Animals Suited to a Travelling Circus Life?’, p. 131.
41
Animal Defenders International, ‘Help for Indian Circus Rescue’.
42
Opili, ‘25 Endangered Animals Rescued from Circus’.
43
The Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 (53 of 1972) Subs. by Act 16 of 2003, Section 3.
250 / P.R. Nisha
would have affected the circus animals and resulted in the deaths of border line
cases.
H. Hediger who served as the Director of the Zoological Gardens, Zurich
observes in his seminal work, The Psychology and Behavior of Animals in Zoos and
Circuses, that the surroundings in which zoo animals and circus animals are brought
up are quite different in the case of spatial territories and association with humans,
In circuses nearly every animal is almost continually in close contact with

people…The circus animal is, as it were, never alone. In the zoo on the contrary,
each keeper is responsible for a large area containing many animals and he has
little or no time to devote to separate individuals, consequently the intimacy of
the circus between man and animal is seldom possible.44
Circus animals are accustomed to movement and music, lights, mechanical and
human noises. He further adds, ‘when in the past I included a circus ring in
reconstruction plans for Basle Zoo, the overriding considerations were biological
ones. Many animals turn stupid when shut up in cages and left to themselves.’45
Hediger’s observation resonates with the Trivandrum Zoo former curator’s remark
quoted earlier regarding more productive breeding among circus animals: ‘It is
mainly because of the more intimate relationship between the animal trainer and
the animals unlike as in the zoo.’46
This is significant when both the state and animal rights NGOs construct and
delegitimise the circus as an ‘other’ of zoos, sanctuaries, national parks and reserved
forests. The relationship between the animal trainers and the animals in the circus
that comes across in the above observations is significant. In the legal battle that
ensued from the ban, this intimacy has not been talked about even by the petition-
ers who raised the problem of livelihood of animal trainers and keepers. Dr M.S.
Gopal, a senior veterinarian who claims to have treated circus animals in various
circus companies for more than 20 years, mentions in his letter dated 4 October
1997 addressed to the Review Committee, ‘There is almost a one to one relationship,
personal attachment and affinity between the animal and the trainer in the Circus.’47
The animal keepers in zoos are selected through employment exchanges, and
people are appointed with no previous experience or training although the rules
stipulate minimum 2 years of experience. Sadasivapillai, curator in Trivandrum
Zoo, quipped, ‘most of the people who come here for the job may not have looked
after even a cow in their lives’.48 Both Pillai and the curator of Tirupati Zoo, Yesoda
Bai, stated that no animal trainer from any circus company has ever joined their
44
Hediger, The Psychology and Behavior of Animals, p. 117.
45
Ibid.
46
Interview, S. Abu, Trivandrum Zoo, 19 May 2010.
47
ICE Case File.
48
Interview, Sadasivapillai, Chief Superintendent, Trivandrum Zoo, 18 May 2010.
Figure 2
Great Royal Circus, 1990s
Source: Author’s collection.
zoo to date. There was no effort from the part of the Ministry that banned the circus
animals to rehabilitate trainers/keepers along with the animals. Nor did they find it
necessary to give any compensation to the animal trainers or their assistants. Maneka
Gandhi, Environment Minister during the 1991 ban, is startlingly condemnatory
about those in the circus trade: ‘If their “fundamental right to carry on their trade
and business” has been infringed…then smugglers, pickpockets and poachers
can also argue on the same lines because their arrest by the police infringes their
ability to carry on their nefarious trades as well!’49 These instances point out how
those who argue for proscriptions seldom pay any attention to rehabilitation of
the lives of humans, any more than animals, caught in the game. ‘Civil Society’s
Uncivil Acts’, as historian Meena Radhakrishna piercingly calls it, while discuss-
ing how the Kalandar community’s livelihood was shattered following the ban on
their traditional occupation of bear dancing.50 Maan Barua reminds with regard
49
Gandhi, Heads and Tails, pp. 96–97.
50
‘even after the Wildlife Protection Act, 1972 came into force, possession of a bear for entertainment
or as a pet was legally permitted till as recently as 1993’. Radhakrishna further observes that by 2001,
the community became not only prone to deprivation and poverty and large-scale starvation but also
vulnerable to undertaking antisocial jobs. Radhakrishna, ‘Civil Society’s Uncivil Acts’, p. 4222; Amrita
252 / P.R. Nisha
to elephants that the key issues facing those who cohabit with elephants, some of
whom are among the poorest people in the world, are often ignored.51
Marthe Kiley-Worthington emphatically notes, ‘it is often argued that zoos are
not necessarily cruel and wrong…, whereas circuses are by their nature cruel’
(emphasis in the original).52 Now organisations such as People for the Ethical
Treatment of Animals (PETA) and the International Organization for Animal
Protection in India (OIPA) are demanding the closing down of zoos as well.53 All
these point towards the fact that when calling for bans the very idea of conservation
needs to be looked at critically so as to understand how we construct and value
our ‘modern’, ‘humanitarian’ image and ideal. As Eric Scigliano scathingly points
out, ‘don’t despair over dying rain forests and coral reefs; your neighborhood zoo
will save the last tigers from the gathering darkness. This mission justifies the
pleasure we get from viewing captive animals and the enrichment zoos derive from
exhibiting them. Exploitation becomes salvation.54 Worthington argues, ‘Ethically,
ecologically and ethologically acceptable ways of inter-species associations are
possible and desirable, and they could develop even in zoos and circuses. For this
to happen, though, such institutions must change, not be banned.’ If this change
occurs, she thinks, just as we keep a watch on human rights, we will also develop
our own understanding of animal rights.55
It should be noted that both our laws and the colonial laws which we had followed
have been specious in the case of forests and animals. Besides promoting hunting as
a ‘manly’ sport, the colonial government had cash awards for those who killed wild
animals, issued guns to interested parties and levied taxes on grazing for domestic
animals.56 Ironically enough this was part of their forest policy, clearing forests and
Talwar reports that `50,000 was given to each Kalandar family as compensation to find an alternate
livelihood. Talwar, ‘Go Home Teddy’, p. 50.
51
Barua, ‘Between Gods and Demons’, p. 79.
52
Kiley-Worthington, Animals in Circuses and Zoos, p. 12; though the publisher claims that this book,
‘was commissioned by the RSPCA to carry out an independent, scientific study of circus animals, in
comparison with animals in zoos and other husbandry systems and in the wild’, the Review Committee
Report dismisses it saying, ‘RSPCA has categorically stated that they have not endorsed the conclusions
made by the author and the views expressed in the book can at best be considered as the views of an
individual and not as the views of RSPCA.’ This book was submitted by the Indian Circus Federation as
an additional document as part of their Transfer Petition (Civil) No. 361 of 2000 in the Supreme Court
of India. The author’s son, Jake Rendle-Worthington, told me that the book had been commissioned by
RSPCA, but they backed out in the final phase because the findings were not in congruence with their
official line. Interview, Jake Rendle-Worthington, London, 22 June 2016.
53
For instance, see the online petition, https://www.change.org/en-IN/petitions/shut-down-all-zoo-
and-circuses-in-india-sukanya-kadyan (accessed 29 July 2014).
54
55
Kiley-Worthington, Animals in Circuses and Zoos, p. 223.
56
Pandian, ‘Gendered Negotiations’, pp. 239–63; Rangarajan, India’s Wildlife History, pp. 22–23;
M.P. Sivadasa Menon, a hunting enthusiast from Malabar, narrates known hunters, methods of hunting
and varieties of animals found in Malabar forests and opines that the hunters in Malabar were of lower
castes and lacked education and this contributed to the perception that hunting is inferior. This glaring
slaughtering wild species. And this very structure had established the Society for
the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (SPCA). Mahesh Rangarajan notes the Raj’s
project to eliminate ferocious beasts, ‘They were a scourge to be wiped out. Such
practices were new to India: no previous ruler had ever attempted to exterminate
any species.’57 The major goal behind these forest policies was to promote valuable
timber such as teak and sandalwood, collect specimens for scientific purposes and
export skin, tooth and nail of animals for commercial purposes.58
Keith Thomas examines historically how the English world entertained them-
selves with sportive killings and animal fights while the mischief of children
extended to killing and inflicting pain on animals since ‘It was a world in which
much of what would later be regarded as “cruelty” had not yet been defined as
such.’ He notes pithily,
Yet contemporaries were surely wrong to think of people as being more or less
humane at one period in history than at another. What had changed was not
the sentiment of humanity as such, but the definition of the area within which
it was allowed to operate. The historian’s task is to explain why the boundary
encircling the area of moral concern should have been enlarged so as to embrace
other species along with mankind.59
He points out, talking about the changing attitudes regarding ‘humanity’, how
‘benevolence’ and ‘charity’ were ‘the most favoured words in literary vocabulary’
in the eighteenth century while with the emergence of towns and industrial order,
animals became highly marginalised and the early modern period characterised
with the ‘concern for animal rights’.60
The Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act came into force in 1890 and SPCA
was established by the colonial state under the Societies Registration Act, 1860.61
casteist observation shows that caste dimensions of hunting discourse need to be looked at just as race
or masculinity. Sivadasa Menon, Malabarile Shikar, p. 14.
57
Rangarajan, India’s Wildlife History, p. 23.
58
There are ample archival records that show the colonial British attitude towards animals and their
forest policies in Malabar, Mysore, Coorg and Canara districts. For instance, a revenue department order
13 December 1886 about granting rewards for the destruction of wild animals instructs that a register be
kept for recording the details of the rewards and the body parts of the animal killed. It further suggests
that an extract from this register be sent along with the skin of the animal to the Huzur office. KRAK,
Tellicherry Sub-Collector’s Office Records, Revenue Board Standing Order.
Sujit Sivasundaram points out that the British colonial state used elephants in the military, traded,
exhibited and exchanged them as gifts in the colonies as well as their homeland. They adopted the
natives’ knowledge to mark, trap, train and medically treat elephants in India, but the native training
and taming were looked down upon as more cruel. Sivasundaram, ‘Trading Knowledge’, p. 42.
59
Thomas, Man and the Natural World, pp. 148–50.
60
Ibid.
61
The Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 notes, ‘The Committee for the Prevention of
Cruelty to Animals appointed by the government of India drew attention to a number of deficiencies in
the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1890 (Central Act No. 11 of 1890)’ which was a consolidated
254 / P.R. Nisha
The Tellicherry Sub-Collector’s Office Records, 1911 shows the government

sanctioning fines levied under the Section 5 of the Towns Nuisance Act to the local
branches of the SPCA where they executed prosecutions for cruelty to animals. One
Superintendent, two Chief Inspectors, two Chief Agents, one 1st Grade, two 2nd
Grade, four 3rd Grade and eight 4th Grade agents were the servants of the Society.
An official memorandum dated 13 August 1910 suggests that to make the operations
of the Act more beneficial, it should be made clear before the public that ‘the agents
of the Society are not merely men of local position drawing adequate pay, but are
also possessed of sufficient veterinary knowledge and appliances to be able to advise
the owners of sick animals and afford some help in their treatment’. To endorse the
view of the government that ‘the people must learn to look upon the Society’s agents
as friends and assisters, instead of merely prosecutors’, it has kept the ‘educational
part of its work in the forefront’. The Society established a veterinary hospital and
a lethal chamber and organised Annual Animal Shows, Essay Competitions, and
Bands of Mercy. It also brought out a magazine called The Tit-Bits of Animal Life
in Tamil and Telugu.62 Mathrubhumi (5 April 1923) reports that British Parliament
passed a law that only certain animals can be exhibited and trained in circuses and
that only certain types of instruments could be used for training.
Faithfully following the colonial laws, the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act,
1960 in India, puts certain restrictions to the exhibition and performance of animals.
In this Act, the word ‘exhibit’ has been defined as the exhibition of animals at any
entertainment through the sale of tickets and training them for the purpose. The
interesting thing to be noted here is the exemptions to this Act:
(a) the training of animals to bona fide military or police purposes or the exhibi-
tion of animals so trained; or
(b) any animals kept in any zoological garden or by any society or association
which has for its principal object the exhibition of animals for educational
or scientific purposes.63
The ‘Exotic’ and the ‘Exhibit’
This section will briefly discuss the history of animal performances in some of
the ‘legitimate’ spaces and also times when they were not considered ‘cruel’.
I will then move on to place how the ideas of ‘exotic’ and ‘exhibit’ that precipi-
tated the colonial animal trade and probably institutionalised animal performances
and exhibitions in spaces, such as the zoos or circuses. The European love for the
‘exotic’ has its root in the territorial, political, racial and environmental imperialism
form of various local acts and was confined to roads or streets in the towns and certain types of cruelty
only, and suggested its replacement by a more comprehensive act. The new act of 1960 contained
provisions for the establishment of an Animal Welfare Board.
62
Kozhikode Regional Archives, Kozhikode (KRAK), Government of Madras Order.
63
Ibid., pp. 175–81.
colonialism exercised in its colonies. The new found lands and things, people and
animals which were in great demand in the native lands of the coloniser became
part and parcel of this ‘craze’. Paul Chambers throws light on how the very idea
of the African elephant Jumbo as the ‘greatest elephant in the world’ invokes the
obsession that was prevalent throughout Europe to see the longest, biggest and
the most abnormal and extraordinary from their colonies.64 The autobiography of
the circus animal agent, Charles Mayer, describes how he was sent to Bombay
to find an Asiatic elephant 14.5 feet high by P.T. Barnum, the circus baron.65
Gippsland Times (27 July 1922) reports the adventures of Charles Mayor who caught
animals from the Malay forests adopting the native ways. Three natives were killed
and 12 were injured when he trapped 60 elephants in a single undertaking. Mayer
describes his first meeting with Mahommed Ariff ‘who held a monopoly on the
animal trade’ in Singapore along with Gaylors, Barnum’s another agent. They bought
‘a tiger, several monkeys and a pair of leopards’ from him.66 Christopher Plumb
points to a rapid increase in animal trade and shipping between Britain and Asia
during the mid-eighteenth century, many of them ‘originating from newly acquired
lands’. ‘Animal dealers were selling a broader range of species’ such as monkeys,
tigers and camels and ‘in the 1760s, a distinct geography of animal exhibitions and
commerce emerged in London’.67
The animal trade from the colonies was one of the most prosperous enterprises for
the colonial empire. They were exported for scientific experiments to be showcased
at the zoological gardens and Parks and to be stuffed in the museums of London and
Paris.68 In Germany, there were companies which specialised in capturing animals
from colonies like Africa to be sold around the world. In Africa, animals, such as
monkeys, elephants, wild horses, dogs and porcupine, were collected as taxes by
the colonial administration (Mathrubhumi, 9 August 1923). In Asia, ‘wild animal
and plant products have been major trade items between South and Southeast Asia
and China for more than two millennia’.69 Chambers describes how Jumbo was
purchased by the Superintendent of Regents Park Zoological Gardens by offering
an Indian rhino, two dingoes, a jackal, a pair of eagles, a possum and a kangaroo.70
W.W. Hunter remarks, ‘In 1882–3, 475 elephants were captured in Assam yielding
revenue to government of 8573 pounds.’71 Edward Blyth, curator of the Asiatic
Society Museum, Calcutta, exhibited 16 fully grown fighting tigers, purchased from
64
See for details, Chambers, Jumbo.
65
Mayer, Trapping Wild Animals in Malay Jungles, p. 22.
66
Ibid., p. 12.
67
Plumb, Exotic Animals in Eighteenth-Century Britain, pp. 53–55.
68
Ibid., pp. 233, 254.
69
Donovan and Puri, ‘Learning from Traditional Knowledge’, p. 2.
70
Chambers, Jumbo, p. 155.
71
Hunter, The Indian Empire, pp. 655–56.
256 / P.R. Nisha
the government sale in Lucknow at Calcutta’s Tiretta Bazar. The other animals
include trained cheetahs, hunting leopards and wild dogs from the hill jungles
of Assam.72 From the animal market at Calcutta, one could easily get monkeys,
bears, leopards and fish for the circus item ‘coloring the fish’.73 The Indian circus
companies bought elephants, horses and camels from melas at Assam, Calcutta
and Bihar. Elephants, chimps, monkeys, bears, camels, birds and different types of
horses like the Persian horse were regularly bought from the Sonpur mela in Bihar.74
The practice of exchanging animals as gifts and tokens of appreciation among
rulers was also common,
the King of Ashanti was anxious to please the English Governor, and knowing
that the white man had a great fondness for animals of all kinds, he sent him
the panther cubs to tame and keep...The Governor took him out of the cage, put
him on a chain and made him free of the house. The panther cub grew up…and
became, next to the Governor, the most talked-of being in the town.75
When Lord Wayles came to India, many such species have been sent to him from
Nepal (Malayala Manorama [hereafter, MM], 19 August 1905). Jose Saramago’s
novel, The Elephant’s Journey, poignantly narrates the elephant Solomon’s travel on
foot from Lisbon to Vienna as a wedding gift from the King of Lisbon to Hapsburg
Archduke in 1551.76 This type of exchange has continued well into the twentieth
century. For instance, Nehru gifted a baby elephant named after his daughter, Indira,
to the children of Japan in 1948.77 From the Ethiopian kingdom, India received
two lion cubs in 1957.78
Examining the correspondence between Edward Blyth, curator of the Asiatic
Society Museum at Calcutta, and Charles Darwin, the scientist, Christine Brandon-
Jones has brilliantly described the animal trade between colonial India and British
Empire in the nineteenth century. The mushrooming of menageries in London was
the result of this animal trade which lasted over a century. Like silk and spices, wild
72
Brandon-Jones, ‘Edward Blyth, Charles Darwin and the Animal Trade’, pp. 168–72.
73
Colouring the fish is a circus item in which the performer swallows small fish of different colours
such as silver or gold. The performer would then drink coloured water and disgorge the fish and water
before the public. Sreedharan from Melur who used to perform this item in various circus companies
told me that in preparation he would have to skip his lunch and empty his stomach for a long time
before the performance since he is supposed to bring back nothing but the fish. The performer would
suffer from stomach ache and vomiting later on; Interview, K.K. Sreedharan, retired circus artiste,
Meethale Peedika, 10 May 2008.
74
Interview, Moreswar, retired animal trainer, Melur, 5 June 2006. On request the name has been
changed; Kumaran, retired artiste, Kannur, 12 March 2009.
75
Lane, The Big Book of Animal Stories, pp. 5–6.
76
See Saramago’s novel, The Elephant’s Journey.
77
Anonymous, ‘Indira’, p. 20.
78
Photograph published in Mathrubhumi Illustrated Weekly, Vol. 35 (16), 1957, p. 13.
animals from the colonised lands also crossed the seas, from huntsmen to interme-
diaries to buyers employed by the European zoological gardens and menageries.
Brandon-Jones notes further that ‘the establishment of natural history museums
and the popularity of zoological gardens gave a veneer of scientific legitimacy to
a trade in live and preserved exotic animals that originated in the much older sport
of wild-fowling and big-game hunting.’79 Thus, the zoological gardens and parks
which we consider as a ‘safe’ haven for animals today have been established for
the pastime hunting and white man’s quest for the preservation of the exotic flora
and fauna found in their colonies.
The Asiatic Society had a significant role in shipping animals to colonial centres
such as London. Wild animals from many places were brought to Calcutta which was
a major port and disembarkation point. Moreover, the European soldiers liked to take
back home exotic animals as pets. The Scottish soldiers who had come to Lucknow
to quell the 1857 rebellion had taken back parrots, guinea pigs, mongoose, dogs
and cats which often landed up in the zoos of their native lands. The wealthy upper
castes in Calcutta also kept exotic animals in their homes.80 The official website of
CZA states, ‘The first zoo was probably the one started by Raja Rajendra Mallick
in 1854. It is popularly known as the Marble palace Zoo and is still in existence in
Calcutta.’81 Newspaper reports from early twentieth-century Kerala also show that
affluent individuals kept wild animals in their homes (MM, 20 March 1901 and
20 March 1912). A 1905 news report about a circus company purchasing a tiger
cub from an Assistant Superintendent of Public Works Department at Trivandrum
throws light on the open private ownership and trade of wild animals that existed
at the time (MM, 13 December). The zoo in Trivandrum considered as the first
public zoo in the country was also established in 1857 by the Travancore king. By
the end of nineteenth century, zoos had been established in many major centres,
and transactions between these zoos were usual.82
Donna Haraway observes, ‘Once domination is complete, conservation is urgent.
But preservation comes too late.’ She notes how gorillas were shot with guns and
cameras by Carl Akeley when ‘science had already penetrated’ and taxidermy
emerged as a scientific expertise,
79
Brandon-Jones, ‘Edward Blyth, Charles Darwin and the Animal Trade’, pp. 145–78.
80
Ibid., pp. 152–58.
81
‘History of Zoos’, http://www.cza.nic.in/history.html accessed on 22 September 2014.
82
Mr. Sankaranarayana Pillai, sent to zoos at Madras, Bombay, Baroda, etc., from Trivandrum
on government expense has disembarked from the British Indian steam navigation ship, ‘S S
Saradhana’ at Alapuzha last Saturday and has left for Trivandrum with new breed monkeys,
birds, deer, etc. brought from Bombay. (MM, 26 April 1905)
The records from the Kerala State Archives show these regular exchanges were done through
bargaining with dealers to get animals at the lowest price; Kerala State Archives, Trivandrum (KSAT),
Cover Files (Napier Museum), Education Department (1940–45), File no. 1584.
258 / P.R. Nisha
What followed was the return to the United States and active work for an abso-
lute gorilla sanctuary providing facilities for scientific research. Akeley feared
the gorilla would be driven to extinction before it was adequately known to
science…. Between 1921 and 1926, he mounted his precious gorilla specimens,
producing that extraordinary silver back whose gaze dominates African Hall.83
It is worthwhile noting here that the Natural History Museum in Trivandrum

established in nineteenth century, adjacent to the zoo, possesses a large number
of animals and birds stuffed by the known Asian taxidermists, Van Ingen & Van
Ingen.84 This must have been definitely part of the idea of becoming a ‘modern’ state.
Helen Cowie notes that London had a long tradition in trade and exhibition of
animals:
In the eighteenth century this was mainly the preserve of small-scale dealers,
showing rare creatures on their premises, in the streets or in traditional social
spaces like coffeehouses. In the second quarter of the nineteenth century, the
zoological garden emerged as the fashionable venue for viewing exotic beasts.
She further adds, ‘They have also been seen as playing an important role in show-
casing Britain’s commercial prowess and imperial power, displaying simultane-
ously man’s domination over the animals and Britain’s growing influence around
the globe.’85
The first state-owned zoo in colonial India, the Trivandrum Zoo, was modelled
on the London Zoo. It is interesting that a ‘temple city’ (as the zoo brochure of
2008 calls it), which remained a Royal State until the mid-twentieth century, had
established such quintessential ‘modern’ institutions, such as the zoo, museum,
botanical gardens, hospital for women and children and mental asylum. A news-
paper report from 1904 puts it succinctly: ‘the city by all means is a perfect blend
of “tradition” and “modernity”…the most “modern” among the cities and thus fit to
be selected as the premier city in the State’ (MM, 1 February 1904). ‘The zoo was
started in 1859 with the gracious gift by His Highness Maharaja’ from the palace
menagerie.86 Madhava Rao, Devan of Travancore, promises John Allan Brown,
the Curator, Trivandrum Observatory in 1859, ‘I shall ascertain and let you know
shortly what selections from His Highness the Rajah’s menagerie can be made
for the zoological garden.’87 In architecture as well, the zoo was modelled on its
colonial predecessor.88
83
Haraway, ‘Teddy Bear Patriarchy’, p. 28.
84
Rajendrababu, Nammude Museum, p. 42.
85
Cowie, Exhibiting Animals in Nineteenth Century Britain, p. 30.
86
Velu Pillai, The Travancore State Manual, p. 275.
87
KSAT, Cover Files (Napier Museum), Zoological Gardens at Trivandrum Formation of 1859–60,
File no. 239/1859.
88
Ramachandran Nair, Thiruvananthapuratthinte Ithihasam, p. 513.
Philip T. Robinson observes that animal performances, such as tightrope walk-

ing, tortoise riding, elephant riding, dining chimpanzees and motorcycle riding
by bears, were regular show items in zoos in the United States in nineteenth and
early twentieth centuries:
The big male gorilla [at the Lincoln Park Zoo in Chicago] occupied a bare cage
whose only internal fixtures were a resting bench and a platform scale…[which]
permitted the public to verify how much he weighed, a play upon our pop-culture
fascination with mega apes such as King Kong and Godzilla. At about the same
time, the Cincinnati Zoo still had trained chimpanzees that entertained visitors
by riding little motorcycles, while the chimpanzees dressed up as members of a
swing band, wielding trombones and drumsticks…Even earlier, numerous zoo
featured young apes and monkeys in people clothes in tea parties, while they
demonstrated their abilities to drink milk from a glass, eat with a spoon from a
bowl, and perform other examples of human etiquette.89
And the most famous among these items was ‘the chimpanzees’ tea party’ in the
London Zoo started around 1928.90 Mathrubhumi (9 August 1923) reports how large
gatherings assembled every day to watch the ape in the London Zoo washing its
clothes and taking a bath. Chuny, an elephant imported from Bengal in 1809, was
one of the London Royal Menagerie’s main attractions.91 Kay Anderson has noted
the introduction of a circus to the Adelaide Zoo in 1939, ‘A trainer was employed,
chimpanzees were trained to hold tea parties, and when the circus commenced
“shows”, members of the society observed that “animals enjoy the performance
as do the many adult spectators who usually outnumber the children”.’ The circus
stopped in 1942 after criticism from some visitors but was replaced with a bicycle-
riding act by an ‘Orang-outang’.92 It is not at all surprising in this context that the
notices (published in October and 12 September 1838) in the collection of the
British Library show performances by a Bengal tiger in Astley’s Circus, supposed
to be the ‘first’ circus, founded in 1868. Another notice of December 1839 titled
‘Ryan’s amphitheatre’ shows an Asian elephant in performance.93
89
Robinson, Life at the Zoo, p. 92.
90
Pillai, Mrigasalayil, p. 44.
91
‘The Development of Circus Acts’.
92
Anderson, ‘Animals, Science and Spectacle’, p. 44.
93
British Library, ‘Astley’s: Van Amburgh, New Feats with the Bengal Tiger!! and The Ladies
Fashions at Paris’; ‘Ryan’s Amphitheatre: Full Grown Living Tiger’.
260 / P.R. Nisha
The photos published in the Mathrubhumi Illustrated Weekly show that joy riding
for children, circus-like feats where the elephant carries the performer in the trunk
and group dancing and performance on the stools by elephants were performed
as late as 1950s in the Colombo Zoo.94 During the first decades of the twentieth
century, there was an Orangutan ape at the Trivandrum Zoo who entertained spec-
tators with his avid smoking. Apart from that, ‘He used to give most of the gifts
he received from the thrilled onlookers to his keeper and he also performed some
special items to obtain incentives for the keeper.’95 Pillai also notes enthusiastically
about the donkey cart meant for joyride for children at the Trivandrum Zoo: ‘the
colourful cart driven by the brisk foal adorned with genie and saddle along the park
road was an exciting amusement for the young ones!’ Without a tinge of emotion
the author concludes that since this poor foal had a premature death, some other
healthy donkey might hopefully come forward to take the place.96 S. Abu recounts
that his colleague’s father, an early generation tiger keeper, welcomed the royal
members to the zoo by carrying the tiger on his shoulders.97 A report by The Hindu
(30 December 1963) as late as 1963 shows photos of the ‘masterly dumb show at
Kerala Forest Sports Festival’ by the two baby elephants, Sankaran and Rangan,
the captive elephant cubs in the Nilambur Forest Division. The babies, hardly two
and a half years, were trained for 5 months. They played a mouth organ apart from
acting the Ganapathy-priest and drunkard roles, ‘these pachyderms also execute
acrobatics of the type that one sees in a circus, like pushing a roller around, with
their forelegs’.
Animal Transactions
Exchanges of animals between zoos and circus companies were common in India.
There were also exchanges and sales between zoos in various countries and between
zoos and private parties. In 1961, Kandambulli Balan complains that surplus animals
born in Indian zoos are sold entirely to the rich foreign circus companies. He says
a lion or tiger cub is priced at `3,500–4,000, which was not affordable to Indian
companies. He emphatically demands that the exporting of wild animals should
be legally banned and made available to Indian circus companies.98
On 28 October 1987, the Environment, Forest and Wildlife Department of India
Government instructed Forest Secretaries and Wildlife Wardens of all states and
union territories,
94 ‘
Aanakal Colomb Mrugasalayil’, p. 24; Sudarshani Fernando and Sujeeva Jasinghe of Centre for
Eco-Cultural Studies, Sri Lanka informed me that there are elephant performances in Colombo zoo
even now. Interview, Sudarshani Fernando and Sujeeva Jasinghe, Bangalore, 5 April 2016.
95
Pillai, Mrigasalayil- Vol. I, pp. 58–59.
96
Pillai, Mrigasalayil- Vol. II, p. 134.
97
Interview, S. Abu, Trivandrum Zoo, 19 May 2010.
98
Balan, Circus, p. 128.
Instances have come when the State Governments and Directors of all Zoos have
requested to allow them to sell their excess animals to circus parties on the plea
that they are having excess animals like lions, leopards and tigers, etc and due
to limited accommodation, there excess animals are maintained in small cells.
Moreover, feeding expenditure on these animals is also stated to be a problem…
After careful consideration, it has been decided not to allow the sale of excess
animals of Indian Zoos to Circuses. However, such zoos may exchange their
excess animals with other Indian zoos authorised by Government of India or
State Government/Municipal Corporation. It would also be appropriate to curtail
or stop breeding of those animals which are getting surplus.99
It is interesting to note that the order acknowledges ‘the excess animals’, ‘small
cells’, ‘limited accommodation’ and the state policy to curtail/stop ‘breeding of
those...getting surplus’. A 1990 order to the Chief Wildlife Wardens of all States
categorically prohibits ‘any commercial dealings of scheduled animals’ and in
respect of other animals, ‘any dealings of wild animals can be done only under
license under Section 44 of the [Wild Life (Protection)] Act. Therefore, zoos are
not entitled to carry out any trade in respect of any wildlife species.’100
Doctor Charles Chandra, a retired veterinary chief of Trivandrum Zoo, recounts
that transactions of animals between the Zoo and certain circus companies were
regular before the aforementioned orders. The Stock Records of the Trivandrum
Zoo during the decade prior to the ban orders attest to this fact.101 Dr Chandra says
that circus companies from outside Kerala also used to come to buy animals. There
were also agents. He said that sometimes the animal trainers of the circuses used
to stay in the zoo for about a week before taking them, to get acquainted with the
animals.102
There was an additional advantage with circus animals for the zoo authorities;
they were more tamed than any other animal they possessed. Like the Trivandrum
Zoo, many major zoos in India had active animal bartering with various circus
companies. The International Tiger Studbook has data about the exchanges of
99
It further mentions that ‘The surplus animals should invariably be disposed of through exchange
programmes between different zoos’. Such bartering of animals among zoos around the world is common
even now. Central Government Orders Prohibiting Sale of Animals by Zoos, G.O No. 3-52/87/WL-1,
Department of Environment, Forest and Wildlife, Government of India.
Recently, an anaconda from Sri Lanka was exchanged with a pair of Indian bison in the Trivandrum
Zoo; ‘Sri Lanka gifts anacondas to Thiruvananthapuram zoo’.
The archival files unravel the story of the bushbuck from Nairobi—how some of its companion
animals died, the suffering during the travel, at the port and in the hands of human administrative
officers; KSAT, Confidential Files, Education (1940–45), File no. 35.
100
ICE Case File, Government Order no. 3352/87-W L-I.
101
Stock Register, Trivandrum Zoo (1970–90).
102
Interview, Charles Chandra, Trivandrum, 16 May 2010.
262 / P.R. Nisha
Bengal tigers between various zoos in India and the circuses.103 This trade was of
course not always one way, and there were also occasional exchanges between
private individuals and zoos.
Conclusion
In a short piece titled ‘The Moral Status of Animals’, philosopher Martha Nuss-
baum argues,
It has been obvious for a long time that the pursuit of global justice requires
the inclusion of many people and groups not previously included as fully equal
subjects of justice: the poor; members of religious, ethnic, and racial minori-
ties; and more recently women, the disabled, and inhabitants of poor nations
distant from one’s own. But a truly global justice requires not simply looking
across the world for fellow species members who are entitled to a decent life.104
Interestingly what has inspired Nussbaum’s take on animals and global justice here is
a ruling of Kerala High Court in the case of circus animals we have been discussing
and the Court’s statement, ‘If humans are entitled to fundamental rights, why not
animals?’105 On the other hand, political theorist and ethicist Alasdair Cochrane says
that sentient animals have a right not to be made to suffer and not to be killed but
not a right to liberty. He argues that humans have no moral obligation to ‘liberate’
them since animals are unlike humans who ‘are autonomous agents who should be
able to frame, revise and pursue their own life goals and ambitions’, ‘thus question-
ing whether a commitment to animal rights necessarily entails an acceptance that
all animals have a right not to be owned’ he points out that complete liberation
of animals that ‘entails a duty to abolish their use, ownership and exploitation of
animals’ is not necessary to recognise their rights. While the human right not to
be owned by another is uncontroversial, in the case of animals it is sceptical.106
Historian Jason Hribal argues that ‘animals are part of the working class’ as ‘animal
rights movements are part of the working class movement, for their formations have
always been linked’ although he hardly mentions performing animals.107
The ruling of the Kerala High Court has some significant ethico-legal observa-
tions that compellingly challenge positions such as Cochrane’s:
103
The book only mentions ‘CIRCUS’ and does not mention the name of any of the circus companies.
International Tiger Studbook, pp. 89, 121, 122; the data provided show that such exchanges are common
in many countries around the world even now.
104
Nussbaum, ‘The Moral Status of Animals’; also see Nussbaum, ‘Beyond “Compassion and
Justice”’.
105
106
Cochrane, ‘Animal Welfare vs. Animal Rights: A False Dichotomy’; Colombia University Press
Blog, ‘Alasdair Cochrane: Making Animal Rights Inclusive’.
107
Hribal, ‘Animals Are Part of the Working Class’, p. 453.
In our considered opinion legal rights shall not be the exclusive preserve of the
humans which has to be extended beyond the people thereby dismantling the
thick wall with humans all on one side and all non-human animals on the other
side. While the law currently protects wildlife and endangered species from
extinction animals are denied rights, an anachronism which must necessarily
change.108
But speaking of ‘anachronism’, it is this very judgement that categorically endorses

the merit of zoos for their ‘conservation and education purpose’ and hails them
as ‘excellent places for captive breeding’. Eric Scigliano points to an interesting
statistic from the AZA that ‘the zoos could maintain just 16 of earth’s 2700 or
so snake species and 141 of 9672 birds’ and scathingly remarks, ‘zoos breed the
animals that draw people to zoos’.109
The ban directly affected a marginalised group of people but, at the same time,
hardly affected certain other dominant exhibition spaces like the elephants in the
religious places or ‘traditional’ animal sport fighting. It has to be noted here that
a ban on elephants would not have been easier since elephants were associated
with powerful institutions with ‘traditional’ and religious aura such as the temple
management body called Devaswom Board. The most ironical fact being that these
exhibitions are not even considered as animals in ‘performance’. What makes certain
performances and spaces illegitimate is a triggering question.
We may remember in this context how in the southern state of Tamil Nadu
recently, following a mass agitation, the central and state governments sought to
lift the Supreme Court ban on the agrarian sport of bull fighting, jallikkettu by
amending provisions in the law related to the prevention of cruelty to animals.
The major argument was that jallikkettu upholds the Tamil traditional and cultural
values and has historical significance.
Similarly, AWBI has filed a report in the Supreme Court alleging that the Thrissur
Pooram, a globally well-known Hindu temple festival in which about 80 elephants
are paraded annually, violates various rules and court orders. The AWBI inspection
team had found elephants with heavy chains on all four legs and around the belly
during the entire 2 days events. Many of these pachyderms had impaired vision
and cracked nails and wounds which were deliberately covered with some black
paste. The team also found the use of banned control devices such as ankush in the
Pooram. Fitness certificates were issued to elephants in aforementioned conditions
and the AWBI team was denied permission in the fitness inspection camp by the
state authorities.110 The Kerala High Court did not even consider AWBI’s plea that
the firework ceremony is often harmful to the elephants who are made to stand
long hours amidst the terribly loud noise, often drugged.
108
109
110
Animal Welfare Board of India, Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change.
264 / P.R. Nisha
The state government of Kerala had also issued a government notification on

26 February 2016 and distributed ownership certificates of elephants against the
provisos of the Wildlife Protection Act, 1972. The Supreme Court’s intervention
has barred the state government of further action for the time being (The Hindu,
5 May 2016). Thus, it turns out that certain spaces and practices are ‘sanctioned’,
and certain work/performances become ‘accepted’ while ‘others’ like the circus or
the poor snake charmer in the street are branded ‘cruel’ and banned. It is this histori-
cal duplicity in the name of love and law that has to be challenged and redefined
for a fair and sincere ethico-legal policy for our fellow beings.
References
Anderson, Kay. ‘Animals, Science and Spectacle in the City’, in Jennifer Wolch and Jody Emel, eds,
Animal Geographies: Place, Politics, and Identity in the Nature-Culture Borderlands, London
and New York, 1998, pp. 27–50.
Animal Defenders International. ‘Help for Indian Circus Rescue’. http://www.ad-international.org/
animals_in_entertainment/go.php?id=212&ssi=10 (accessed 30 July 2014).
Animal Welfare Board of India, Ministry of Environment and Forests, and Climate Change, Report on
Inspection of Captive Elephants Used in Thrissur Pooram 2016, 23 April 2016.
‘Animals Rescued, Circuses Banned’. http://www.indiadivine.org/content/topic/1928663-animals-
rescued-circuses-banned (accessed 30 July 2012).
Anonymous. ‘Indira’, Mathrubhumi Illustrated Weekly, Vol. 35 (35), 1957, p. 20.
AP Report. ‘Bolivia Bans All Circus Animals’. http://www.theguardian.com/world/2009/jul/31/bolivia-
bans-circus-animals (accessed 23 March 2012).
Barua, Maan. ‘Between Gods and Demons’, Seminar, (651), 2013, pp. 75–79.
Brandon-Jones, Christine. ‘Edward Blyth, Charles Darwin and the Animal Trade in the Nineteenth
Century India and Britain’, Journal of the History of Biology, Vol. 30 (3), 1997, pp. 145–78.
British Library. ‘Astley’s: Van Amburgh, New Feats with the Bengal Tiger!! and The Ladies Fashions
at Paris’. http://www.bl.uk/collection-items/circus-poster-van-amburgh-new-feats-with-the-
bengal-tiger (accessed 22 September 2014).
Chakraborty, Tapas. ‘Circus Ends, Nightmare Begins for Animals’. http://www.telegraphindia.
com/1010725/front_pa.htm (accessed 29 July 2014).
Chambers, Paul. Jumbo: The Greatest Elephant in the World, London, 2007.
Cochrane, Alasdair. ‘Animal Welfare vs. Animal Rights: A False Dichotomy’. http://www.casj.org.uk/
blogs-archive/animal-welfare-vs-animal-rights-false-dichotomy/ (accessed 5 August 2014).
Colombia University Press Blog. ‘Alasdair Cochrane: Making Animal Rights Inclusive’. http://www.
cupblog.org/?p=8131#more-8131 (accessed 5 August 2014).
Cowie, Helen. Exhibiting Animals in Nineteenth Century Britain: Empathy, Education, Entertainment,
London, 2014.
Donovan, D. G. and Puri, R. K. ‘Learning from Traditional Knowledge of Non-timber Forest Products:
Penan Benalui and the Autecology of Aquilaria in Indonesian Borneo’, Ecology and Society,
Vol. 9 (3), 2004, pp. 1–23.
Gandhi, Maneka. Heads and Tails, Goa, 1994.
Government of India, Department of Environment, Forest and Wildlife, New Delhi, Central Government
Orders Prohibiting Sale of Animals by Zoos, G.O No. 3-52/87/WL-1, 28 October 1987.
Haraway, Donna. ‘Teddy Bear Patriarchy: Taxidermy in the Garden of Eden, New York City, 1908–1936’,
Social Text, (11), 1984–85, pp. 20–64.
Hediger, H. The Psychology and Behavior of Animals in Zoos and Circuses, New York, 1962.
‘History of Zoos’. http://www.cza.nic.in/history.html (accessed 22 September 2014).
Hribal, Jason. ‘Animals are Part of the Working Class: A Challenge to Labor History’, Labor History,
Vol. 44 (4), 2003, pp. 435–53.
Hunter, W. W. The Indian Empire: Its People, History and Products, 1886, New Delhi and Chennai, 2009.
Indian Circus Employees Union Office, Thalassery, Kerala, Case File (ICE Case File). Amended Writ
Petition, O. P. No. 155 of 1999, Annexure P 10.
———. Argument Notes O.P. No 2636 of 1999, M A Sasidharan and others versus Union of India
and Another.
———. Government of India, Ministry of Social Justice & Empowerment, Animal Welfare Division,
Circular No. 9-9/97-AWD, 23 June 2000.
———. Government of India, Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment, Gazette Notification, 14
September 1998, File no. 9-9/97-A. W.
———. Government of India, New Delhi, Department of Environment, Forests and Wildlife, Ministry
of Environment and Forests, Notification, File no. 26-7/91 PWL-I, 2 March 1991.
———. Government Order no. 3352/87-W L-I, 14 November 1990.
———. Kerala High Court, Judgment 6 June 2000, N.R. Nair and Ors Vs Union of India and Ors.
———. Original Petition No. 155 of 1999, N. R. Nair and others versus Union of India and Others.
———. Report of the Committee Constituted by the Ministry of Environment and Forests, Government
of India to Review the Ban on Exhibition and Training of Performing Animals, CWP 890/91.
———. Special Leave Petition (Civil) of 2000, filed before the Supreme Court of India, 18 July 2000.
International Tiger Studbook, Leipzig, 2002.
Iossa, G., Soulsbury, C.D. and Harris, S. 2009. ‘Are Wild Animals Suited to a Travelling Circus Life?’.
http://www.savezooelephants.com/pdf/WILD%20ANIMALS%20IN%20CIRCUS.pdf (accessed
22 December 2012).
Kandambulli, Balan. Circus, Kottayam, 1961.
Kerala State Archives, Trivandrum (KSAT). Confidential Files, Education (1940–45), File no. 35,
Bundle no. 235, Letter from the Honorary Director, Government Gardens Trivandrum to the
Chief Secretary to Government, Travancore, 15 December 1940.
———. Cover Files (Napier Museum), Education Department (1940–45), File no. 1584, Bundle no.
234, 7 December 1940.
———. Cover Files (Napier Museum), Zoological Gardens at Trivandrum Formation of 1859–60, File
no. 239/1859, Bundle no. 30, Letter from Madhava Rao, Devan of Travancore, Trivandrum to
John Allan Brown, the Curator, Trivandrum Observatory, 2 July 1859.
Kiley-Worthington, Marthe. Animals in Circuses and Zoos: Chiron’s World?, Essex, 1990.
Kozhikode Regional Archives, Kozhikode (KRAK). Government of Madras Order, Judicial Department,
Communicated to all Sub Divisional Magistrates, 24 March 1911, Tellicherry Sub-Collector’s
Office Records, List- II, File no. 2264.
———. Tellicherry Sub-Collector’s Office Records, Revenue Board Standing Order, 13 May 1886,
List- I, File no. 4631.
Krishnan, M. ‘The Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972: A Critical Appraisal’, Economic and Political
Weekly, Vol. 8 (11), 1973, pp. 564–66.
Mayer, Charles. Trapping Wild Animals in Malay Jungle, New York, 1921.
Nussbaum, C. Martha. ‘The Moral Status of Animals’, Chronicle of Higher Education, Vol. 52 (22),
2006, pp. 6–8.
———. ‘Beyond “Compassion and Justice”: Justice for Non-human Animals’, in Frontiers of Justice:
Disability, Nationality, Species Membership, New Delhi, 2007, pp. 325–407.
Opili, P. ‘25 Endangered Animals Rescued from Circus’. http://www.hindu.com/2002/03/15/
stories/2002031507140300.htm (accessed 30 July 2014).
Pandian, M. S. S. ‘Gendered Negotiations: Hunting and Colonialism in Late 19th Century Nilgiris’,
Contributions to Indian Sociology, Vol. 29 (1–2), 1995, pp. 239–63.
266 / P.R. Nisha
Performing Animals (Registration) Rules. 2001. http://envfor.nic.in/legis/awbi/awbi19.html (accessed

30 July 2013).
Pillai, Koothattukulam M. S. Mrigasalayil [In the Zoo] Vol. I, Kottayam, 1962.
———. Mrigasalayil [In the Zoo] Vol. II, Kottayam, 1963.
Plumb, Christopher. Exotic Animals in Eighteenth-century Britain, Doctoral thesis, University of
Manchester, 2010.
Prakash, Gyan. ‘Circus Animals: Ordeals Ends for a Better Deal’, The Times of India, 2 September
2001. http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/patna/Circus-animals-Ordeal-ends-for-a-better-
deal/articleshow/1320569066.cms (accessed 29 July 2014).
Radhakrishna, Meena. ‘Civil Society’s Uncivil Acts: Dancing Bear and Starving Kalandar’, Economic
and Political Weekly, Vol. XLII (42), 2007, pp. 4222–26.
Rajendrababu, K. Nammude Museum [Our Museum], Trivandrum, 1978.
Ramachandran Nair, Pattom G. Thiruvananthapuratthinte Ithihasam [The Legend of Trivandrum],
Trivandrum, 1996.
Rangarajan, Mahesh. India’s Wildlife History: An Introduction, Delhi, 2001.
———. ‘Region’s Honour, Nation’s Pride: Gir’s Lions on the Cusp of History’, in Divyabhanusinh
ed., The Lions of India, Delhi, 2008, pp. 252–61.
Rangarajan, Mahesh et al. Gajah; Securing the Future of Elephants in India: The Report of the Elephant
Task Force, New Delhi, 2010.
Robinson, Philip T. Life at the Zoo: Behind the Scenes with Animal Doctors, New York, 2004.
‘Ryan’s Amphitheatre: Full Grown Living Tiger’. http://www.bl.uk/collection-items/circus-poster-full-
grown-living-tiger (accessed 22 September 2014).
Saramago, Jose. The Elephant’s Journey, London, 2010.
Scigliano, Eric. Love, War and Circuses: The Age-old Relationship between Elephants and Humans,
Boston and New York, 2002.
Sivadasa Menon, M. P. Malabarile Shikar [Hunting in Malabar], Palghat, 1959.
Sivasundaram, Sujit. ‘Trading Knowledge: The East India Company’s Elephants in India and Britain’,
The Historical Journal, Vol. 48 (1), 2005, pp. 27–63.
‘Sri Lanka gifts anacondas to Thiruvananthapuram zoo’. http://www.thehindu.com/sci-tech/energy-
and-environment/sri-lanka-gifts-anacondas-to-thiruvananthapuram-zoo/article5893355.ece
(accessed 22 September 2014).
Stuart Lane, Margaret. The Big Book of Animal Stories, London, 1928.
Swart, Sandra. ‘“The World the Horses Made”: A South African Case Study of Writing Animals into
Social History’, International Review of Social History, Vol. 55 (2), 2010, pp. 241–63.
Talwar, Amrita. ‘Go Home Teddy’, Outlook, 30 October 2006, p. 50.
‘The Development of Circus Acts’. http://www.vam.ac.uk/content/articles/d/development-of-circus-
acts (accessed 3 August 2014).
Thomas, Keith. Man and the Natural World: Changing Attitudes in England 1500–1800, Harmondsworth,
1983.
Velu Pillai, T. K. The Travancore State Manual, Vol. IV, Trivandrum, 1940.

Animal Circus in India

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Animal Circus in India

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Ban and benevolence:

Circus, animals and Indian state

Keywords: circus, animals, animal cruelty, animal captivity, conservation, zoo

Source: Author’s collection.

The Board decided to stop registration of elephants for performance under

be sent to the Ministry for consideration and there should be no performing

From Circus to Zoo: The Aftermath

In circuses nearly every animal is almost continually in close contact with

Source: Author’s collection.

The Tellicherry Sub-Collector’s Office Records, 1911 shows the government

The ‘Exotic’ and the ‘Exhibit’

It is worthwhile noting here that the Natural History Museum in Trivandrum

Philip T. Robinson observes that animal performances, such as tightrope walk-

But speaking of ‘anachronism’, it is this very judgement that categorically endorses

The state government of Kerala had also issued a government notification on

Performing Animals (Registration) Rules. 2001. http://envfor.nic.in/legis/awbi/awbi19.html (accessed

You might also like